From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, mingo@elte.hu,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com,
rusty@rustcorp.com.au, cl@linux-foundation.org,
dhowells@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, avi@redhat.com,
andi@firstfloor.org, fweisbec@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/21] sched: implement scheduler notifiers
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:29:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1258403365.3961.15.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B019FC9.4080309@kernel.org>
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 03:54 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I really hate exposing activate/deactivate.
> >
> > You say:
> >
> >> Activated and deactivated are called
> >> when a task's readiness to run changes.
> >
> > How is that not clear from the out hook? It would seem to me that when
> > you get scheduled out with a p->state != TASK_RUNNING you're not ready.
>
> In that in OUT hook the next task to switch to is already determined
> and it wouldn't be symmetric with activate (but I suppose we can match
> the symmetry from activate side). If deactivate/activate/in/out
> events are too low level,
Not too low, just wrong. Most functions operating on the scheduler state
like sys_renice(), sys_sched_setscheduler() etc.. all do a
deactivate/activate series, even though the task at hand never goes
through a sleep or blocking state.
> we can have sleep/ready/run hooks instead.
I would much prefer that, sleep/ready are significantly different from
deactivate/activate.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-16 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-16 17:15 [PATCHSET] workqueue: prepare for concurrency managed workqueue Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 01/21] workqueue: fix race condition in schedule_on_each_cpu() Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 23:04 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-11-17 0:08 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-17 7:04 ` Avi Kivity
2009-11-17 16:16 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 02/21] sched, kvm: fix race condition involving sched_in_preempt_notifers Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 03/21] workqueue: Add debugobjects support Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 04/21] sched: implement scheduler notifiers Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 18:31 ` Avi Kivity
2009-11-16 18:43 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 18:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-16 18:54 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 20:29 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-11-17 16:16 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 05/21] kvm: convert kvm to use new " Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 06/21] sched: drop preempt notifiers Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 07/21] sched: implement sched_notifier_wake_up_process() Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 08/21] scheduler: implement force_cpus_allowed_ptr() Tejun Heo
2009-11-17 5:14 ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-17 5:19 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 09/21] acpi: use queue_work_on() instead of binding workqueue worker to cpu0 Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 10/21] stop_machine: reimplement without using workqueue Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 11/21] workqueue: misc/cosmetic updates Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 12/21] workqueue: merge feature parametesr into flags Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 13/21] workqueue: update cwq alignement and make one more flag bit available Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 14/21] workqueue: define both bit position and mask for work flags Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 15/21] workqueue: separate out process_one_work() Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 16/21] workqueue: temporarily disable workqueue tracing Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 17/21] workqueue: simple reimplementation of SINGLE_THREAD workqueue Tejun Heo
2009-11-17 0:47 ` Andy Walls
2009-11-17 5:23 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-17 12:05 ` Andy Walls
2009-11-17 16:21 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-17 16:26 ` Hi ... I want to introduce myself :) Setiajie 余鴻昌
2009-11-17 15:05 ` [PATCH 17/21] workqueue: simple reimplementation of SINGLE_THREAD workqueue Linus Torvalds
2009-11-17 16:12 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-17 19:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-11-17 14:03 ` Johannes Berg
2009-11-17 16:24 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 18/21] workqueue: reimplement workqueue flushing using color coded works Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 19/21] workqueue: introduce worker Tejun Heo
2009-11-17 11:39 ` Louis Rilling
2009-11-17 11:51 ` Louis Rilling
2009-11-17 16:25 ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 20/21] workqueue: reimplement work flushing using linked works Tejun Heo
2009-11-16 17:15 ` [PATCH 21/21] workqueue: reimplement workqueue freeze using cwq->frozen_works queue Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1258403365.3961.15.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox